members can better perform counter insurgency and stability operations. admiral and general, what are your impressions regarding the dod's efforts to develop service members' cultural knowledge and foreign language skills to better perform traditional and nontraditional war fighting activities, admiral? >> sir. the efforts of the department and the services to increase language skills and regional and sub regional and micro regional expertise, along with it. i think they are progressing in that regard. i think that they are -- they are demonstrating much more effectiveness in projecting a relatively shallow level of language, and regional skills across a very broad force. we're still challenged to steep

people in the environments, develop true expertise, native level language, native born regional skills if you will, but, the discussions are taking place and i think the latest qdr and the latest budget submission highlights those requirements:

thank you as i remember, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. akaka. >> th we're getting some relief from that rule, is that correct? >> in fact, there is, senator, the secretary of defense has approved in a sense, a u.s.

caveat, if you will, that goes along with our transitioning of authority of u.s. forces to nato control and it includes up to 14 days for interrogation, for analysis, and then in some cases, for those who need longer detention, that is also available as well. >> well, i want to thank you for leading that charge, because i think our war fighters will appreciate that, particularly the marines down south and has that been well received by the force? >> it has, sir, and again, as you know, if you want to live your values, you have to set conditions in which our troopers can do just that. >> well, thank you. thank you, yes. i'm glad you've been given some relief, because the old rule didn't make a whole lot of sense and the new way forward does make sense. we talked a little bit about iran. from your point of view, how much time is available to the world before iran gets a nuclear weapon, given what they're doing

today? >> again, probably best for a closed session, but it has thank flip slid to the right, ra bit. and it is not this calendar year, i don't think. >> ok. but it's not for every -- >> it is not infinite. >> ok. now, my favorite topic, detainees, i want to let the committee know that you and doug stone and others involved with camp bucca is probably one of the great success stories of history really turning a recruiting center around that was part of the core operations and i just want to put on the record, how much i appreciate what y'all are able to do with camp bucca to turn it in to a model military prison. those that were irreconcilable were segregated out and it was a great success story, but that takes us now to afghanistan. detention operations over there are part of this surge, i would

think. >> they are, senator. in fact, your former wing man, colonel, now brigadier general, mark martin, is in fact a full-time resident of the area facility there, now called the par one detention facility. he is spearheading the effort, first of hall, tone sure absolutely the same kinds of initiatives are pursued there that you shaw firsthand in iraq and then to develop, to help develop the concepts and then implement the concepts for afghan forces to be trained, equipped, and then take on the tasks there increasingly, so that we can step back as the number of areas in which overtime will need to step back, and that's the plan for there. >> his boss, vice admire howard, out of the seal community, i might add, is the overall task

force 435 commander. general martins is the deputy. also, working more with our state department colleagues, inl and others, to ensure that the afghan facilities stay outside kabul and kandahar and other places are also conducting their business appropriately. and they're also partnerships of the future in some of the other rule of law areas as well. >> thiewp. -- thank you. do we have people in bagram confinement facility that are non-afghan foreign fighters? >> we do. yes, sir. >> is it fair to say -- we need a closed session about this eventually, mr. chairman, but kind of put out for public consumption the best i can, that we have a dilemma in this war. we're running out of jail space for certain people and we have need to find exon finement

facilities at work. would you support sending guantanamo bay detainees to afghanistan to bagram, is that a good idea? some had suggested that? >> i think that at the very least, over time, that's an idea that we need to go sift under a tree until it passes, i think. >> i'll take that to be that's not a good idea. >> again, if we transition to afghan control -- >> but i'm talking about taking gitmo people here and sending them to afghanistan. wouldn't that create great problems for the afghan government -- >> this is why we need to think pretty hard about that. again, we're going to transition this facility to afghan control, and we're going to do this in the relatively near term. >> well, these foreign fighters that we're talking about are the afghans willing to take them? >> sir, again, i would defer to the department of justice or

others, because this is a big policy issue. it is one that people are -- >> well, i would general, there are some prisoners in afghanistan that are non-afghan, held by the american military, that this may be very difficult to convince the afghans to take them, horit may not be wise to send them to the afghans. is that a fair summary? >> well, sir, you're the lawyer -- >> well, just say yes. >> i mean the fact is though that those individuals there broke laws in afghanistan, and so, you know, again, as we're transitioning to afghanistan, that's an afghan legal issue, but again, i'd be happy to defer to the legal community. >> ok. admiral olson, we catch somebody in yemen, where do we send them? >> sir, that's a question on so many levels we would have to go into a closed session.

>> fair enough. last question, general petraeus. hugh indicated in the past and i think very reluctantly, that gitmo, the jail, is counterproductive to the war effort and if possible, should be closed. could you tell me why you believe that? >> it rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, because i think that that facility, and many of you have have developsisted it, actually has conducted in an appropriate manner, but at the very least, it has a symbol attached to it, that is one that is used in our area of responsibility, against us. it in some cases is even lumped in to abu ghraib. completely different case, there's no reason to do it, but again, it has become april conic in certain -- iconic in certain respects. >> and one last very simple question. isn't it true that some of hour heals renews to turn prisoners over to us, if they believe they

could work their way to gitmo? >> sir, i do not know the answer to that question. >> you've never had an ally tell you that we can't turn a prisoner hover to the americans if they're going to go to gitmo? >> first of hall, i'm not sure we sent anybody to gitmo on any watch as a centcom command he were. >> we haven't sent anybody to gitmo on your watch? i think you're right. >> 15, 18 months now. >> ok. thanks. >> thank you, senator graham. senator ben nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your service and for being here with us today. general m petraeus, we've heard from all of the services that combatant commanders have difficulty getting enough i.s.r., and this budget starts to address that, adding more u.a.v.'s, but the focus is primarily been on the number of aircraft and not on the personnel required to operate

the aircraft, and analyze of the intelligence collected. and some respects, it seems to help that the easier part may be getting the uav's, the tougher part may be in manning the uav mission in terms of staffing as well as intelligence. can you give us your opinion on this overall picture of isr, personnel versus equipment? >> i'd be happy to, sir. in fact, there's something called the f3ead process, that is find, fix, finish, analyze and disseminate. of that, the hardware you just talked about, what might be on a uav is a subset of that. it's a very, very critical subset, but again, without all of the people that do the tasks associated with the find, finish, fix, analyze and

disseminate process, it is not fully exploited to the extent we need to. we have spent quite a bit of time pulling back up to strategic level when folks start talking procurement issuers and talking about of the overall intelligence process that involves, again, these various platforms, and a whole host of other platforms and capabilities. and in fact, i think that the air force is to be commended for the enormous shifts that it has made in particular, to man hall these different elements, and the same for obviously the other service he is in the intelligence community more broadly. >> well, between the army and the air force, the fy-11 budget request includes about $1.6 billion to buy 77 predator class ua v's and by 2016, both services project to have spent $10.2 billion on 499 of these uav's. in looking they unmanned platforms and the requirements for staffing to 5th all of

those -- fit all of those requirements, is there adequate coordination between the services to get that done, so that we don't end up with a stove piping of each branch having its own approach to dealing with this? >> there is, sir. in fact, in osd, there's an isr task force that looks hat this very broadly, and analyzes it, together with the services for all the way down to the tactical level on up to the strategic level. again, it is a hugely important element of what we need out there and again, hardware without the people is not sufficient and they're addressing that. >> in achieving of the goals, sometimes referred to as bench marks, can you take two of the major bench marks and give us your impression of how we're doing on achieving those goals to the -- two of the most important ones?

>> well, again, to go back to hardware, but hardware is one of them, because i think we're literally maxed out the production capacity, and i mean, there's been intense scrutiny on where every one of these plat norms is, and then there's been equal scrutiny on -- what again is termed the back end. it's everything that allows it to stay in the sky, or a line, has we call it, to stay in the sky for 24 hours a day to provide the unblinking eye. >> i think in each of host areas, -- those areas, we have pushed industry about as far as it can go, is any understanding, and i think we've got the personnel pipeline has been expanded dramatically. again, not just in terms of sy of who pilot these unmanned all of the others who are doing the exploit, analyze, disseminate piece, and fusion, balls the proehl break-through intelligence in present years has been fusion ofismagery,

human intelligence, signals intelligence, measurement intelligence. it's been pulling all of that together. that's the real key. >> we're in the midst of implementing a new missile defense plan, in you're hop, called phased adaptive approach. of course, one of the benefits of this, it allows for an immediate missile defense against -- system against iran. what impact does the approach have affecting regional stability in the aor? >> well, we're looking at the ballistic missile defense, frankly in the aor itself. we have made our requirements known to the department, and also, there's obviously an effort to tie in what we do, because now it's all about shared early warning, and again, sharing across combatant commands, and so as the

deployment sequences are sorted out, we will then tie in with our european command brethren, what we see they see and vice versa. >> in an area that has more intrigue, perhaps than others, piracy in the vicinity. how much of our time and our financial resources and personnel and equipment would be assigned to dealing with the piracy in the vicinity, that is within the aor? >> it's not a substantial portion, but it is an important mission, that the naval component of central command performs, but it does so together with the coalition mayor time force, and also with e.u., nato, an even independent elements, including china hand

russia has been out there has well. ultimately, senator, the compete there is going to be maritime shipping companies, taking more defensive measures, including up to we think at some point, armed security elements. we have changed our tactics and so forth as well, we've learned a lot about the networks that carry out the pie operate attacks, which are really quite extraordinary in some cases, up to 500, 600 mimes who have the coast of somalia, with big huge boats with 55-gallon drums of fuel throughout them and other than paraphernalia, but it's a very challenging mission, because we have the authorities relative to pirates, only that police have relative to a declared criminal. this is a reduced set of authorities, if you will, that we have in this hey reason that, and -- arena, so if you then detain a pirate, we're back to the question of who do you turn

him over to. there are not authorities in somalia that will deal with them. we've made arrangements with some neighboring countries in the region, but some of their facilities are starting to get fairly full. >> well, with respect to those authorities, and my time is up, is that something we should be looking at in therms of rooms of engagements, if we're going to be patrolling and protecting those arenas? i realize it's very sensitive. >> it is a sensitive one and we have offered this to the policy arena. it becomes an international legal issue again and so forth and i think the u.n. is given about the authorities that generally the international community is willing to provide. >> thank you. thanks to both of you. >> thank you, senator nelson. fortune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral and general, thank you very much for your extraordinary service to our country during some very interesting and dangerous times.

general petraeus, the defense weapons systems are being proliferated throughout the world, including in the centcom world of responsibility. iran, for example, is seeking to purchase one of the latest, most advanced such face to air missile systems, the russian s-300. i'm interested in what your views are with regard to the activities by the iranians to pure shoe some of these anti-access and area denial strategies? >> hand in fact, with respect to the s-300, i think you know, that has not been delivered and there's quite a bit of november cuss, in fact, on that. whether it will be delivered, because it will represent a significant increase in the capability air and missile capability of the iranian forces. there's no question that they are trying to increase their anti-access capabilities against mayor time, as well as air

threats. it's something that we watch and that regional partners handle handled -- and others in that area watch as well. >> what's your view on the pure dispute of this strategy by iran and how it would affect hour ability to project power in the middle east, specifically in the gulf of iran and the strait of hormuse if they are successful in their pursuit of these? >> again, we have a -- the most capable military in the world. we can deal with the threats that are there, but they make it more difficult. that's basically the short answer to that, without getting in to the she was of each type of system, and what we have in return. we think, for example, that we could keep the strait of hormus in the event if we were properly

positioned and so forth. that would be a challenging task and these are the kind of tasks that we have to be prepared to per norm. >> general, wanted to get your views on the development of the air-sea battle that's currently underway in the pentagon. the new qdr directs the navy and air force to develop a joint air-sea battle for defeating adversaries with some of these anti-access and aerial denial capabilities that i have just mentioned which in turn will help guide the development of future capabilities that will be needed for effective mower projection operations, and some of thieves anti-access and aerial denial weapons can be low tech weapons, such as mines, and -- or small boats using swarm tactics, and sometimes can be as effective -- just as effective in creating the denied areas. can you kind of give us your views on the development of this new hair-sea battle concept so narfe, where does centcom fit in to the overall concept and

development and evaluation and ultimately the implementation of that concept? >> we are being consulted on that, but i can't really give you have hall that much -- all that much, because it is very much in the early conceptual stages at this point in time. our focus as a combatant command is dealing on what we know exists right now and could exist in the near term, with what we have right now and know we'll have in the near term. that really is our focus, although we again do get the opportunity to contribute to the services developing these concepts. >> ok. it's not like -- i mean, i assume they're consulting in their discussions -- >> that's correct. >> do you have a view about how far long range strike capabilities would fit in to that type of air-sea battle concept? >> again, unless we get in to proehl specifics, i'm not sure where i would head with that. i have mean, we've got a variety

of long range strike capabilities, as you know, some quite impressive. we've used some of those nancy reagan recent years certainly. and again, without really getting in to the details of the concepts. >> ok. let me ask one other question, if i might, having to do -- deal with afghanistan. it has to do with the gel tense operations, air-military intelligence and i would direct this to both you general and admiral as well. major general michael flynn, the top military intelligence officer in afghanistan, published what he tithe he would the blueprint for making intelligence relevant in afghanistan. the report notes and i quote, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to hanes fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we're trying to protect and persuade, end quote. and i would pose this question

to both of you. do you have agree with general flynn's overall assessment in this report, what actions have you -- are you taking, in response to that report, and have any of the initiatives that he directs in the report been carried out? >> in fact, senator, when i -- when we conducted the strategic assessment that's customary with a new commander coming in to a position like that of central command, one of the biggest of the big ideas was that hour capacity and capability for afghanistan and pakistan was not adequate. and in fact, i went to admiral blair early on and asked if he would appoint a mission manager, he did one better, he appointed an associate deputy director of national intelligence for that. we then set about beefing up the capability and capacity there, including sending general flynn there, among others of course, to help build that. we formed a center of excellence

for af-pak in the joint intelligence center aft central command. the af-pak cell or cell as it's called in the joint staff, has also done the same, and so what we've tried to do as part of the overall effort is just to build the capability that we had. this is not unlike what we did in iraq actually has well, in early 2007, one of the first requests i have made before even going to take command was for a sub stages augmentation of our intelligence capability. we got that and we've been working on providing that type of augmentation in afghanistan as well. >> anything to add, admiral? >> it's natural for the early energy of the intelligence community to be focused on hidefying the immediate threats to our force, but as the battlefield has evolved, the transition in to using intelligence capabilities to

better develop our understanding of the environment and to seek opportunities for engagement is a transition without flaw. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. thune. senator bill nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your continued service to hour country. and i'm especially proud that most of you reside in my state, in the wonderful area of tampa. gentlemen, last week, i did a hearing for the chairman in our emerging threat subcommittee, on the increased radicalization of young men, and the extremists elements that are so bedeviling the civilized world.

and the conclusion that came out of a lot of the testimony in this hearing was that we could continue to do everything that we are doing very well, of the military, is doing just exceptionally well, particularly in the responsibility that you give to these young officers, with of the such funds, that they can go in and help a village, a community, and it helps us ultimate my from hour military objective. and we talked about how all the other agencies of government, working with the military in a place like afghanistan, agriculture, health, digging wells, education, all of these things are so important, but that if you don't get right to it, about the radicalization of

young men by presenting islam as something that it is not, that is not thought in the koran, -- thought i -- taught in the kora, that you'll still have these extremists that go out and blow themselves up and threaten stability. i would love to have your comments on that conclusion. >> senator, i think this really gets they heart of the -- one of the big ideas out there, which is it takes much more than just military security activity, it takes whole of governments approaches and not just our government, but host nation governments, all other partners, because indeed, you have to get at the conditions that give rise to extremism, to the kind of discontent and so forth and unfulfilled expectations and hall the rest of that, that can give rise to extremism. and you have to get at the

issues of actual education in some cases. which again, in some cases, creates fertile ground for the planting of extremist seeds as well, and again, that takes a very comprehensive approach. it is one that some of our partners in the region have actually done quite well in recent years. if you look at some of the countries in the arabian peninsula in particular, others have not, but that is the kind of approach that is necessary to this overall challenge. >> i agree with that completely. i woul just add that the department of defense plan for addressing violent extremist threat, does include actions led by the military, as you laid it out, to conduct the traditional military kinds of actions, but it also lends strong minimum they are support to the whole of government, whole of nations approach, to dealing with the

environment. >> if y'all as successful as you have been, certainly in iraq and we hope in afghanistan, and now in hour relations, that through the pakistani government, that they are successful too, but yet, if young men are led astray has to what the koran teaches and they're willing to go and commit suicide, that is going to continue to be a great hindrance to us, and i think we've got to look hat this through our northern command as well. the radicalization of young men here n side the united states -- inside the united states. but that means we've got to be able to find clerics who know

what true islam is, and are willing to go out and educate the ones that are being radical highed. how do we do that? >> sir, i think the hanes has to lie, needless to say, in the islamic world, and it has to start there and it has to be islamic leaders who identify the issue that you have just raised, about of the importance of religious leaders, who will -- who have the courage to deny extremism as an aspect of islam. those leaders are out there. they are carrying out some of these initiatives. some of their countries were threatened enormously by this extremism, correctly diagnosed the threat, and have been taking

appropriate actions in the wake of that. and needless to say, that has to continue to spread to address this threat of extremism as you've laid it out. >> all right. you have take a country like saudi arabia, now they can deal with the radicalization problems by going to the tribes, which is the family of the young fellow that's been radicalized. and work at it that way, and they've had some measure of success in doing that. but in other countries, you can't do that. you can't work through the tribes. so my time is up, i want to lay the problem out. i want to continue to work with both of you. and with the overall problem that's in this country has well. >> senator, just to follow up, i mean, saudi arabia has not just worked it through the tribes, frankly, which they have and

it's been an important component, they've done a whole government approach to this overall issue, and indeed, it has been quite impressive for a country that five years ago, was seriously threatened by extremists who blew up their ministry of in they'ror building, -- interior building, so threatened oil workers that thousands departed, took hover our consulate in jeddah and so forth and what they have done has been quite impressive. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. nelson. senator sessions. >> thank you. thank both of you for your service to hour country. the more american people see in uniform perform and are prouder of them and i continue to talk to them in airports and places like that, and they're just an inspiration to me, and the good -- but good leadership is important and does make a difference in your providing that. thank you so much.

with regard to the training of the afghan military, and police, general perspectives phrase, your second -- general petraeus, you spent a year or so training a force and i'm sure you developed some ideas about how that ought to be done. it seems to me that if you've got a local defense force, that's willing to defend their community against taliban or al qaeda, perfect training, if it's going to delay dramatically on the ability of those people to be effective is a danger, and i recall the anbar model, where we quickly got sunni tribal leaders to empower their local young men to turn on al qaeda,

and that was hand effective part of that effort, so i have guess my we have to you is, i see there's some -- question now is, i see there's some tension in the state department or other people within the military about how trained in kabul are -- i'm talking in theory here, how much training by the central government, before they can be allowed to defend their home territories, and with a little samry and support of a good tribal leader, or mayor horcommunity leader, much good can be done. do you understand -- where are we? are we demanding too much central highed training before we -- send trammized training before we join with the local leaders? >> in fact, we are trying to take advantage of that in cases where that's appropriate, senator, hand to emmower in some

cases, with -- and to empower in some cases with over sight. there's eight or nine that are ongoing. these great special forces elements that are typically of the ones partnering with them, tied into the afghan ministry of interior, because it's very important that we not just empower warlords to stand up their forces again, given the effort that it took to disperse and disarm a number of those elements. we really -- it is the same dynamic that we had in iraq, different terrain, different culture, different social makeup and so forth, that's every valley, as opposed to larger tribal hair i can't say, say, in anbar, but in fact, in anbar, over time, and we knew this in the beginning, but the situation in iraq was so desperate, that we were willing to just take individuals who were willing to oppose al qaeda and then we would figure out half wards, how we were going to mesh them into

the greater iraqi structure and it has taken just quite some time to do that but it has happened and in fact, iraq pays the salaries of all of the reef maining, so-called sons of high rack who still have not been provided jobs in various minimum strips or what have you, and a number of them have indeed already transitioned in that form. so that's what we have to be sensitive to here has well. and recognize in afghanistan, is a country that doesn't have the financial means that iraq has, and show that's yet another dynamic that we're wrestling with. but we are indeed taking advantage of some of thieves opportunities in very careful ways, in partnership with hour iraqi colleagues. >> it strikes hel me, this is a large country, there's 25 million people, we'll soon be drawing down our troop levels. many of them now going to have to be concentrated in some of the more dangerous areas, and

that leaves a lot of areas that we don't have any presence in, or very little presence, so it seems to me that we may be desperate enough, we may have to thank some chances with leaders we believe are pretty good local leaders and see if we can't support them. do you agree? >> well, some of this is going on natural my has well. there are areas in which afghans are the security forces, have been for some time, areas in the north where we have virtually no other presence and perhaps the force protection elements that work with the provincial preconstruction team, so again, there's a variety as always, these endeavors are somewhat of a match work quilt and what you're trying to find is the right answer for that particular location and then to try to figure out how to make it hand enduring answer as well. >> general perspectives phrase, with regard -- general petraeus, with regard to the shortage of

trainers, perhaps our trainers can be a little less skilled as trainers. it seems to me, that would be one area you have really don't want to be short on. do you have receive the -- how long it will be before we can get the sufficient number of trainers there? >> well, let me just say that again, what we would like to see right now is for our nay though partners to -- nato partners no generate the additional trainers that have been requested. again in the theory of halls have:contingency plans, there are thoughts about how to fill that if we have to, in other ways. >> admiral olson, with regard to the surp program, and how you have train special operating forces, isn't it true that we believe of the best policy of our government is to have a seamless relationship between government aid and our special

operations forces, and that we use hall of those of factors, political, financial, as well as military, to achieve maximum progress toward our goals? >> certainly the more interagency cooperation there is, the better the outcome typically is. >> well, with regard to the ahead that's going through us-aid, and state department, other things, it seems to me that when you've got a skill, special operation forces team in hand area, and they really have little or no other u.s. government presence there, aren't they sort of the representative of the united states and do you feel like they're empowered sufficiently financially to make commitments with those leaders, to say, if you will do this, we'll do this, and could that -- if we had

more -- if they're empowered greater, that they could be more effective in reducing violence and protecting the lives of our own people? >> sir, i'd leave the answer regarding sufficiency to general petraeus, because the money flows through him form the most mart. it is true that special operations forces often are somewhat more than remote and do become, if not diplomats, at least representatives of the u.s. presence. and it is important that they be able to apply benefits in the regions where they live, and to within the special operations community, resides of the active component of the civil affairs capability of the army, for example, and that is a very strong and strengthening relationship between us-aid and

the special operationings community in many of its regions. >> general petraeus, my time is up, but briefly, you feel like we've made progress in that area, and we make more? >> i think we made progress but i think we can make more. in fact, one of the important elements of general mcchrystal's overhaul approach is to achieve greater unit of effort and that means conventional forces, special forces, civilian elements and so forth, all working together to mr. common name, trying not to duplicate efforts, but in -- and trying to do it in a way that is as limb bureaucracy as -- limb bureaucracy as necessary, but recognizing that some of that is necessary, show no, there is a need to do more in this area, and that is one of general m mccrystal's thrusts and thinks effort. >> well, i strongly some more that. thank you. >> thank you, senator sessions.

senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral olson and general petraeus, as other members of the committee have already shade, i thank you for your service to our country and for your testimony today. you know,ism proud that north carolina is home to the joint special operations medical training senator hat fort bragg and as you know, all special joint operations combat medics are trained at that facility to obtain the skills they need on the battlefield. just several months ago, i had the opportunity to visit this facility and witness the great training that's taking place there. but i understand that combat medics need to have of the capability to perform complicated procedures, often in the dark, in the middle of the night, and under hostile live fire conditions in remote locations. i also understand that the dot seep ups -- dot searches tremendous value in live tissue training, especially since they're tasked with taking young

people and training them in to combat medics in 26 weeks. while simulators may have hold promise according to the secretary of defense, simulators currently lack the reamism to replicate combat wounds and the emotional stress found on the battlefield, and also, moreover, all patients don't bleed the same or react to medical procedures in the same fashion. admiral olson, can you describe the operational and the institutional impact we would see if live tissue training was stopped? >> senator, there are main examples of how far live tissue training has directly contributed to of the preservation of human life on the battlefield and i have not been exposed to any simulation, any technology that adequate live substitutes for live tissue training. >> thank you.

i'm also pleased that the u.s. army special operations command and the marine corps special operations command have developed a close relationship with the university of north carolina, and the university of north carolina recently signed a memorandum of agreement with both special operations commands. this m.o.u. includes but is not limited to cultural awareness and linguist particular training, business practices, degree completion opportunities and a senior service fellowship college program. my question is, admiral olson, can you provide your view on the educational needs of hour special forces and how public and private universities can assist? and are you interested in create being a fellowship in counterterrorism and public policy for members of the u.s. special operations community? >> it really is a good example of how of the military and academic communities are interacting, the kind of support -- the kind of relationship that we've developed, enables us to in

areas where we simply don't have the capacity within the military forces to perform that kind of training, that kind of education, certainly would support an effort to create similar kinds of fellow ships for specialized kind of education as you've described. >> you know, in that area, around the fort bragg area, the unc system has 16 public university with fayetteville state, nc state, chapel hill, all within very much close hand then we have some excellent private universities that, such as duke university and wake forest, that does excellent work too, so i think this m ho ou wil help from an educational need, especially from of the linguistic and cultural for the men and women in the special operations and these special forces. i have also wanted to talk about the high rainan influence -- high rainan influence in iraq. despite the fact that the iraqis are increasingly expressing

their discontent with high rainan influence in iraq, we need to keep in mind that iraq -- that iran has people in iraq that it uses to drive a wedge between the sunnis and shiites in ethnic hand they ignite the ethnosectarian sinks. these iranian tensions can undermine iraqi security in the delicate political situation. how do you foresee dod using its future relationship with the iraqi security forces to steer iraq 's defense strategy and acquisition of weapons systems in order to avoid high rainan meddling that could jeopardize iraq 's stability? >> well, in truth, senator, i don't think we'll have to steer at all iraq's leaders and its security force leaders share a concern about neighbors who arm, train, fund, equip and direct,

proxy elements on their soil and they have continued to carry out operations against these illegal elements, and i'm confident that they will continue to do that in the newspaper tour, even as we -- future, even as we draw done. they've conducted a number of unilateral operations against these elements as well. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hagan. senator wigger. >> general petraeus, senator levin began asking early on about iran, mentioned the u.n. resolutions, asked about being more explicit about the possibility of a blockade, a quarantine. you said that the president explicit not to take the military option off the table. and you recently talked about

combining engagement with iranian leaders backed up by the threat of further sanctions. and i think this is a quote of yours. that puts us in a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the pressure track. that's the course on which we are embarked now. you alluded to that, but if you could explain a little more about what the pressure track will involve, and if you could temperature us, has anything -- tell us, has anything the international community done so far, yielded positive results? do we have any success stories at hall with regard to all of these sanctions and options and all of the talk that we've done, about iran and then half that, i want to ask you about the

dissidents in tehran, but if you would answer the first part of it, i would appreciate ifirst.o, over the course of the last year, the effort has november cussed on -- another cussed on the diplomatic track. all the countries of the world have given iran ample opportunity to discuss the issues that are out there and to try to resolve them and of course, that has not happened. >> totally unsuccessful? >> and that has led to what the president has -- and others, secretary of state have termed the pressure track, and that is the effort now with the u.n. security council and other countries, and other organizations as well, the e.u. is involved in this, countries do it as single actors and so forth, in a variety of different ways. everything from, you know, on the u.s. side, treasury designations and a host of

financial and trade restrictions and so forth. and that is now about to ramp up, needless to say. that's what the increased pressure will result from. with respect to what this has done in the past, indeed, some of these actions have resulted in the interdiction of money, of weapons, of technology, and so forth. it has limited even the travel of some of the leaders of the keefe security elements and so forth. so there have been. now, has it dissuade evidence them from the path that some analysts believe they're on in terms of developing the components of a nuclear weapon? you know, again, there may have been some initiatives that have made that more difficult. a good bit more difficult, but i

think of the assessment is that that continues to march on. >> have we squandered precious time? >> i don't think so. i think this has given us a very firm foundation in which to work as we transition from the pressure track. no one can say iran has not had every opportunity made possible to them, including, you know, of the reaching out of the open and and so forth. and they have not grasped that. in fact, the response has been the opposite and that provides -- no one examine say that the united states and -- no one can say that the united states and the other countries of the world have not given that every opportunity and that therefore i think translates in to the greater possibility that the pressure track could come up with meaningful actions. >> the actions on the pressure track will have to be agreed to by the united states and a number of -- >> again, it depends which

action you're talking about, if you're talking about u.n. security council resolutions, it obviously has to be the permanent five and then there has to be nine total members and either abstention or for in the case of the permanent five and votes in the affirmative as i understand it, but i would be happy to defer to the state department on that. >> how public have we been about what form these actions might take? >> again, i'd defer to the state department on that. i think an hal awful lot of this understandably gone on behind closed doors. that's how that is best pursued. >> you may want to defer to the state department on this next question, but i do want to ask it. it's been said i in this commite and on the floor, we should be showing hour moral support for the reformers in iran, for the

people willing to thank the street and stand up and risk their lives and safeties. if you were a reformer in tehran, what would you be hoping the united states would do, and do we need to send some signals has to the limits of what can be expected of us, as we try to give some sort of moral support, burden of proof we were also try to be realistic about what we can do to help these people who are striving for freedom and democracy? >> well, as you suggested, senator, with preexpect, i think that's -- respect, i think that's one for the state davenport and the folks who pull together all the different strands of this technology, because i think talking about one element of this without talking about the other in a comprehensive approach could be misleading. >> all right. well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator mckaskel. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

following up on some of the sanction stuff orrin iran. the iran's sanctions act was passed 14 years ago and we've never enforced it, and recently, there has been some haifa tension given to this and -- attention given to this hand one example, large example is one of a south korean engineering firm that entered in to a contract with iran to upgrade oil fields in iran in 2007. it was a $700 million contract, and in 2009, the u.s. army gave of the same company a contract for $100 million to build housing. for army in south korea and then just a few months half that, they entered into another contract with iran. :

and what that process, a particular country that has done something and iran is not on that list is not my area of expertise. >> one of the reasons iran is not taking us as seriously as we should is we talk about the carrot stick and using it and -- a lot that has been on the books for 13 years. we had a chance to talk in afghanistan. the size of the army we are building, the ability to sustain that. if you are over there, we are at

the number 300,000, we build an army above 300,000 but even if we keep it there, that is going to be around $5.5 billion. their gdp depending on -- somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion. we didn't do the heavy lifting to sustain the military, for decades to come. >> i am not aware of anyone signing up to do that for decades to come but clearly we are helping afghanistan build a military force for which week transition so that our forces

can go home. frankly it is lot more expensive to maintain our forces in afghanistan than it is to maintain a comparable number of afghan forces that might be able to replace our forces in that country. in a business case, there is some logic to continuing to support overtime although no commitments have been made in that regard but continuing to support overtime is substantial afghan national security force and indeed one that they will not be able to pay the expenses for over that time. >> the house rules committee meets today at 10:00 eastern to accept parameters for the health-care debate live on c-span2. the house gavels in today at 9:00 eastern. folks are possible after 10:00. they are in on sunday at 1:00 with votes possible after 2:00.

coverage on c-span. >> mr. speaker, on this historic day the house of representatives opens its proceedings to televised coverage. >> 31 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. today we have expanded access to politics and public affairs, nonfiction books and american history through multiple platforms, television, radio and online and cable television at latest gift, an expensive free video archive. c-span's video library. president obama pulls a harris, rally in fairfax, virginia, just outside virginia. they will take a final vote on health care legislation sunday. this is about 35 minutes.

>> h george n! heart is everybody doing today? thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. it is good to be back with the real patriots.

i want to thank dr. alan martin, president of george mason university and his family. dr. surely travis is here, thank you. and coach, we were just talking little bit about looking forward to picking george mason in my bracket next year. i love you. i don't know if you remember but i visited this university about three years ago for the first

time. this was just the dawn of my presidential campaign. it was three weeks old i think. we didn't have a lot of money. we didn't have a lot of staff. nobody could pronounce my name. our poll numbers were quite low. and a lot of people in washington didn't think it was even worse us trying. they had counted us out before we even started because the washington conventional wisdom was that change was too hard. but what we had even then was a

group of students at george mason who believed that if we work hard enough and if we fought long enough and if we organized enough supporters that we could finally bring change to that city across the river. we believe that despite all the resistance we could make washington work. not for the lobbyists, not for the special interests, not for the politicians but for the american people. and now all, three years later i stand before you, one year after the worst recession since the great depression, having to make

a bunch of tough decisions, haven't had a tumultuous debate, having had a lot of folks who were skeptical that we could get anything done, and right now we are at the point where we are going to do something historic this weekend. that is what this health care vote is all about. [cheers and applause] >> a few miles from here congress is in the final stages of a faithful debate about the future of health insurance in america.

it is a debate that has raged not just for the past year but for the past century. one thing when you are in the white house is you have a lot of history books around you so i have been reading up on the history of teddy roosevelt, republican, the first to advocate that everybody gets health care in this country. every decade since, republicans and democrats from harry truman to richard nixon to lyndon johnson to every single president has said we need to fix this system. it is a debate that is not only about the cost of health care, not just about what we are doing

about folks who aren't getting a fair shake from their insurance companies. it is about the character of our country. about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time. whether we still have the guts and courage to give every citizen, not just some, for a chance to reach their dreams. at the heart of this debate, the question of whether we are going to accept a system that works better for the insurance company than it does for the american people. because if this fails the insurance industry will continue to run amok. they will continue to deny people coverage, they will continue to deny people care and jack up premiums 40 or 50 or 60% as they have in the last few weeks with no accountability

whatsoever. they know this which is why their lobbyists are in the halls of congress as we speak and pouring millions of dollars into negative ads which is why they're doing everything they can to kill this bill. the only question is are we going to let the special interests win once again? or are we going to make this vote a victory for the american people? george mason, the time for reform is not five years from now or 20 years from now, it is

now. we have had a year of hard debate. every proposal has been put on the table. every argument has been made. we have incorporated the best ideas from democrats and from republicans in to a final proposal that builds on the system of private insurance we currently have. the insurance industry has reported congress has tried to portray this as radical change. i just want to be clear. we have heard every crazy thing about this bill. first we heard this with a government takeover of health care. then we heard that this was

going to kill granny. then we heard illegal immigrants are going to be getting the main benefits of this bill. they have for every argument at this legislative effort. but it turns out at the end of the day what we are talking about is common-sense reform. that is all we are talking about. if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. if you like your plan, keep your plan. i don't believe we should give the government or the insurance companies more control over health care in america. it is time to give you the american people more control

over your health. [applause] >> since you have been hearing a whole bunch of nonsense, let's be clear on what exactly the proposal they are going to vote on in a couple days will do. it is going to change health care in three way is. we are going to end the worst practices of insurance companies. this is a patient's bill of rights on steroids. starting this year, thousands of uninsured americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time.

starting this year insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. starting this year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping coverage when you get sick. they have spent a lot of time weeding out people who get sick so they don't have to pay benefits people have already paid for. those practices will end. they will offer free preventive care for these. if you buy a new plan there will not be restricted limits on the amount of care you receive from the insurance companies. follow the young people here today, starting this year, if you don't have insurance all new

plants, on the parent's plan. until you are 26 years old. you will have some security. if the first job doesn't offer coverage, you will know you have coverage. if you start your lives and your careers last thing you should be wary about is whether you are going to go broke or make your parents broke just because you get sick. all right? that is the first thing this legislation does. the toughest insurance reform in history.

when you talk to republicans, are you against this? a lot will say that part is okay so let's go to the second part. the second thing that will change about the current system is for the first time, small business owners and people being priced out of the insurance market will have the same choice of private health insurance that members of congress give to themselves. [applause] >> what this means is small business owners and middle-class families will be able to be part of a big pool of customers that can negotiate with the insurance companies and that means they can purchase more affordable coverage in a competitive market place.